I think the main comparison for me is actually a tiny no-KYC VPS.
You could probably do this cheaper with a very small VPS acting as a gateway, especially if all you need is SNI passthrough or a reverse tunnel back home.
But then you own the whole stack: initial setup, WireGuard/tunnel config, reverse proxying, firewall rules, updates, monitoring, and eventually fixing it when something breaks.
So Blindport makes sense to me less as “cheaper than a VPS” and more as “pay a small premium to avoid running another server while keeping the TLS endpoint at home.”
That trade-off is actually pretty interesting.
I’d still personally want to compare the monthly cost against a minimal no-KYC VPS, but operationally this is definitely cleaner.
I think the main comparison for me is actually a tiny no-KYC VPS.
You could probably do this cheaper with a very small VPS acting as a gateway, especially if all you need is SNI passthrough or a reverse tunnel back home.
But then you own the whole stack: initial setup, WireGuard/tunnel config, reverse proxying, firewall rules, updates, monitoring, and eventually fixing it when something breaks.
So Blindport makes sense to me less as “cheaper than a VPS” and more as “pay a small premium to avoid running another server while keeping the TLS endpoint at home.”
That trade-off is actually pretty interesting.
I’d still personally want to compare the monthly cost against a minimal no-KYC VPS, but operationally this is definitely cleaner.